[PATCH v3 5/5] Image size checks: Simplify SPL_SIZE_LIMIT logic

[Philip Oberfichtner]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 05:02:30PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 9/4/25 10:23 AM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:59:01PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On 9/3/25 12:56 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> > > > Simplify the depends-on logic for SPL_SIZE_LIMIT. No functional change.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Philip Oberfichtner <pro at denx.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >    Kconfig | 2 +-
> > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Kconfig b/Kconfig
> > > > index aa00669ba20..343299eed50 100644
> > > > --- a/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/Kconfig
> > > > @@ -588,8 +588,8 @@ config HAS_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
> > > >    config SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
> > > >    	hex "Maximum size of SPL image in bytes"
> > > >    	depends on HAS_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
> > > > -	default 0x11000 if ARCH_MX6 && !MX6_OCRAM_256KB
> > > >    	default 0x31000 if ARCH_MX6 && MX6_OCRAM_256KB
> > > > +	default 0x11000 if ARCH_MX6
> > > This makes it less obvious what the other case (!256 kiB SRAM SoCs) covers,
> > > why is that an improvement ?
> > 
> > This was originally Heinrich's idea. I personally find it better this
> > way, but I won't argue about it.
> 
> Why do you send a patch which you cannot even argue is correct ?
> 
> > Can you please find a consensus the two of you?
> 
> No, you should be able to clarify why this patch should be applied, do not
> shift this onus to other participants.

I prefer conciseness over verbosity. That's all. But I'm okay to step
back on this one. There may be different view points.